Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< April 06	April 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Chris Arsenault

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not news. WP:NOTNEWS. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and also WP:BLP1E, although he just recently died, the guideline is still applicable. There is only coverage in the context of a single event, and subject is more than likely to remain a low-profile individual. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with this point. Many of the news outlets also included in-depth coverage of this person's life. They are all reliable secondary sources.

The fact that the person was incredibly notable within the rescue community does not make him any less notable. He was a prominent figure, and his contributions were widely known. It is very unfortunate that he received global attention only after his death. Nonetheless, that does not make him any less notable. He had been one of the most prominent rescuers in the country and in the state of New York for almost 20 years.

As Wikipedia guidelines state, notability is not something Wikipedia can create or confer. He was a notable individual, and his work received recognition. The fact that his work received global media coverage after his death, does not make him less notable .

There are a lot of news and I agree Wikipedia is not a news site. But many sources cover his life and what he did, and how contributed to the rescue community.

I did not know about him until he died, but after reading all the sources providing detailed descriptions of his 20 years of work, I decided to create this page, to honor his legacy and contributions. It is an unusual case, he was saving animals and not people. Animals do not usually get into the news as much. Moondust342 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CODA System

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make a Smellmitment

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one piece of secondary coverage, and it's completely routine. Can be merged to Old Spice#Advertising. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some coverage in RS [1], [2]. But !delete is probably fine, these are thin articles in RS. Sourcing now in the article is only in PR/advertising items I'd consider primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Fletcher

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All coverage (which is weak) is of the internet show he created—not of him. Non-notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aluka (gamer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable; found no secondary coverage ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, and China. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Twilight Sparkle, Teacher for a Day

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable app; no secondary coverage whatsoever ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Software. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HDStarcraft

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Closing as requested. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cricklewood Wanderers F.C.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt the notability of this team. The only sources are databases, and some other sources that do not establish notability. Note that this is not the same team as documented here. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please cancel this nom, seems that there are similar articles that exist in mainspace. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ponnar Shankar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is poorly written and fails GNG. GoldRomean (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan Law School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a defunct for-profit UK legal training centre lacking reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Primarily a puff piece designed to promote the (now non-existent) organization. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as a section of Nottingham Law School, for which it provided some services, and with which its degrees were affiliated. BD2412 T 18:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Manickam

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. There are no sources that cover the subject substantially. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Singapore. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret M. Otteskov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NPOL and I could not find sufficient sources to establish the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, Africa, and Uganda. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Vanderwaalforces, Kindly recheck those references before nominating the article for deletion!

Also, kindly note that I have added a few more citations. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian violence in the Ottoman Empire

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is blatant propaganda that utilizes almost exclusively Turkish government or gov-linked or denialist sources in order to "counter" to the Armenian Genocide "claims" as Turkey sees it. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Armenia, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT; from the very first sentence written to push a propaganda narrative, as described in our Featured Article Armenian genocide denial. "There was no genocide, and if there was the Armenians were to blame" in Wikipedia article form. The article creator should be up for a CTOPIC TBAN for this intentional disinformation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments provided by OP and the user above do not meet WP:DEL-REASON. This article is based on a wide array of scholarly, academic sources from English, Turkish and even German. WP:BIASEDSOURCES guideline allows partisan sources as long as they are used properly. Even if we were to assume that an article is biased, this is not a valid reason to delete it. The proper action to take is to determine why it is biased and fix the errors. Furthermore, contrary to what has been suggested by others, this article does not in any way claim that there was no Armenian genocide, just like Palestinian political violence does not negate the existence of Gaza genocide.--Wallis sabiti (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your article was already deleted several times for similar reasons. You engage in POV pushing, which is against wikipedia rules. It is not the first time I see you doing this. Athoremmes (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You support the Treaty of Sevres and revisionist United Armenia project on your user page. You are the real POV pusher. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , it was already discussed in previous AfD, the article is written in vague language, sources are biased, etc Athoremmes (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIASEDSOURCES are allowed. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't just biased sources, they're unreliable. The Turkish article was deleted a few days ago. tr:Ermenilerce_Türklere_yapılan_katliamlar. ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article was deleted because there was already an article for the Armenian rebellions, the log states on Trwiki. If you think sources are unreliable, you should take this to WP:RSN. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that? Because mainstream scholarship does not recognize "Armenian violence in the Ottoman Empire" as a thing. It's nothing but cheap propaganda. ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Type "Armenian terrorism" on Google scholar and you will see how scholarship recognizes it. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Armenian terrorism" ≠ "organized massacres of Turks by Armenian revolutionaries", let alone of 518,105. ----Երևանցի ^talk 18:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From 1910 to 1922, Armenian bandits had killed 523,955 Ottoman Muslims.^[1] (p. 92) Wallis sabiti (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, per "International Law Expert" Sadi ÇAYCI in the "Review of Armenian Studies" with a reference to the "State Archives of the Turkish Prime Ministry". sounds as reliable as it can possibly get. ----Երևանցի ^talk 19:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Heads up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenzyyx. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Liaison Officer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little sources avaliable, no notability. Article is unencyclopedic as well. This article was created in 2006 by a brand new editor with little changes since. GoldRomean (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toshiharu Morinaga

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am struggling to verify if Toshiharu Morinaga played for Shenzhen during the 2003 season. If he did, we should redirect to 2003 Chinese Jia-A League. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, China, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. There aren't sources even on ja.wiki. Svartner (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs playable in Fortnite Festival

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the last deletion discussion for this type of article, there is almost a unanimous agreement that this should not be on Wikipedia. While there are sources discussing songs being added to the game during major collaborations (e.g. seasons), there is no critical commentary regarding them, nor is there any significant-coverage. And the majority of songs don't get any coverage regarding their announcements regardless. The majority of the list is also unsourced. This article fails WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Note that there is a key difference between a list like List of songs in Guitar Hero II and this: the songs playable in Guitar Hero II was a worthwhile split that met WP:NLIST and was fully sourced, and also basically served as a DLC list. This is not the case here, as songs in Fortnite Festival are effectively cosmetic items and a list like this would be like a "List of Fortnite skins" article. I also think a merge of the songs list into Fortnite Festival would similarly fail GAMEGUIDE/GAMECRUFT, so I'm proposing a flat out deletion. Also, this isn't something that should probably be on Wikipedia, but rather a playlist on some other site or fandom. λ NegativeMP1 15:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 15:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The places that we do have lists of songs for rhythm games generally try to be more than just a list, like reasons for selection or reception, in addition to nearly every song being covered by RSes. I know that the headliner acts for Festival are noted but definitely nowhere close to even a small fraction if songs, nor have I seen commentary related to reception or how songs are chosen. Masem (t) 15:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can tell, this is contrary to the consensus decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in Fortnite Festival as well as violating the policies listed by nom. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This may not be popular opinion, but I believe that song lists for all video games are WP:GAMECRUFT, regardless if they are rhythm game or not. OceanHok (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 This is likely eligible as title evasion to create the article under another name; somehow remembering the former article this is even worse than the original article deleted because it's just a long contextless playlist of songs, in addition to in-house background music just being thrown in here too to overload it. Nathannah • 📮 15:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear consensus at previous AfD and no reason why this should have a different outcome Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems like everyone's on the same page, and as the pages creator I don't think I can give a fair opinion. I also lack the ability to defend the articles existence, as well as the previously made points.AlexEditsStuff (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your maturity and understanding. I remember the first few articles I created on Wikipedia got deleted but I persisted and am still here over a decade later. It takes a while to get to grips with our notability guidelines but having a good read of WP:GNG and WP:N will go a long way. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ferrier

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to pass certain specific notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy third party sourcing about them in media independent of themselves (such as newspapers, music magazines or books) -- but this literally just states that he exists and lists a bunch of singles and albums without making any discernible claim to passage of NMUSIC at all, and the only "reference" in the entire article is his paid inclusion obituary on the self-published website of the funeral home that held his funeral, which is not a notability-assisting source.
This has also already been moved into draftspace once for being unreferenced, before being moved back into mainspace by its creator yesterday upon the addition of the funeral home footnote that isn't cutting it, so it has to come to AFD rather than just being immediately redraftified.
The simple fact that he existed is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on proper reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Louisiana. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emiljano Shehaj

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, only played 208 minutes in Albania’s highest football league. Fails WP:GNG, I could only find these WP:ROUTINE announcements [3] [4] Geschichte (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ermal Sako

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, only played 208 minutes in Albania’s highest football league. Fails WP:GNG, I could only find this WP:PASSING mention [5] and this brief interview. [6] Geschichte (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatz Awards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to entities but an award's significance isn't solely determined by the prestige of the awarding entity or the notable recipients. Instead, verifiable evidence from reliable sources is required to substantiate claims of notability. These sources must specifically focus on the award itself, providing in-depth information. Sources primarily highlighting award recipients rather than the award itself don't establish notability. Overall, technically fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Simply clicking on the News tab above brings up articles about the yearly nominees, for several years. This even has been going on for almost a decade and has yearly press coverage in the country, in several RS. Seems to pass notability Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm also finding sigcov. The Punch is solely about the award itself. Music in Africa lists the nominees, but it opens with the structure of the awards platform. Bella Naija makes explicit and evidenced claims of notability. The Guardian Nigeria is about the awards themselves, as is Nigerian Tribune. Anerdw (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choorian (film franchise)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia does not generally allow articles for series that only have two pieces of media. ★Trekker (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Legal Services Authority

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable GraziePrego (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Punjab. Shellwood (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this nomination does not show signs of WP:BEFORE. PULSA as a government body, working across the state. " In Punjab such kinds of lok adalats are conducted under the Punjab Legal Services Authority. It takes up the various kinds of cases and is settled under this lok adalat." ([7]) See for example [8], [9], [10]. --Soman (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They exist, but coverage I find is only where they've provided legal services and are only mentioned. The one source now in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Trump

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. Barron Trump was recently closed as a redirect, and many of the arguments for he being redirected apply to Tiffany as well: the article isn't very long, she isn't in the public eye very much, and coverage of her invariably mentions her father. Both Barron and Tiffany are adults now. Some presidential children have their own articles; many do not. Her notability hasn't been discussed in nine years (during which there were multiple Barron AfDs) so discussing it now seems fair. _pbp 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. _pbp 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; the decision with respect to Barron Trump has since been reversed, and in any case this is both an WP:OTHERSTUFF assertion, and one where the subject at hand is clearly more notable. BD2412 T 14:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assertion "clearly more notable" needs some evidence backing it up... _pbp 16:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the complaints about Barron in the discussion was that he kept a politically lower profile, whereas she was a speaker at the Republican National Convention, with the requisite press coverage. BD2412 T 17:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tiffany in turn keeps a much lower profile than Junior, Eric and Ivanka though... _pbp 19:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacklyn Frank

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSUBPOL. A member of a 1,600-population local council with minimal coverage in reliable sources is not notable enough for a standalone article. CROIX^talk 14:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Antigua and Barbuda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WAMPOC/WAMPEX

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability, as it relies on self-referential sources and lacks significant independent coverage from credible publications that establish the conference as a prominent part within the energy industry Mapsama (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Africa, and Ghana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WAMPOC/WAMPEX meets WP:EVENT and has received significant independent coverage from reputable sources. Find coverages here [11], [12] , [13] [14] Robertjamal12 ~🔔 10:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamzeh Najafimehr

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. A quick source analysis:

A patent, a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
Permanent dead links: [15], [16])
An article in Iran's state-run, unreliable Islamic Republic News Agency which is then reprinted or forms the source for bloggy coverage: [17], [18], [19].
An article from the questionably reliable Iranian Students' News Agency (one of the permanently dead links above) that was reprinted in additional sources: [20], [21].
Self-promotional content: [22], [23].

The major editor of the page has after the fact disclosed a conflict of interest and it appears that the purpose of the page is to promote a non-notable individual. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

As the editor who has contributed to improving this article, I acknowledge a potential conflict of interest and therefore refrain from voting on the outcome. Nevertheless, I would like to provide the following clarifications:

The article has been significantly updated with numerous reliable and independent sources that demonstrate the subject's notability in accordance with Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG).

The individual has received multiple international invention awards under the supervision or endorsement of WIPO, including:

• Gold Medal at the Thailand Inventions Expo 2024

• Silver Medal at the Seoul International Invention Fair (SIIF) 2023

• Bronze Medal and Special Prize at the Geneva International Exhibition of Inventions 2024

These events are among the most recognized global exhibitions in the field of invention and innovation, and are not affiliated with the subject in any commercial or promotional way.

Furthermore, the article is supported by in-depth, non-trivial coverage from multiple major news agencies, including IRNA, ISNA, Hamshahri, Khabar Online, Verna Magazine, and Iran Front Page. The subject also has a verified Google Knowledge Panel in both English and Persian.

I kindly request that independent editors review the current version based on content, sources, and alignment with Wikipedia’s notability policies before reaching a final conclusion.

Thank you.

Memareaval (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, People, and Engineering. 14:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Scrapyard (mixtape)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NALBUMS. Half of the sources are from Twitter while the rest are seemingly from student newspapers, which do not contribute to notability. The only reliable source from WP:A/S used here is HotNewHipHop, but an album needs at least 3-4 reliable sources from A/S to pass for notability. Locust member (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Sources 13 and 15 are a RS, an album review. KTLA is non-trivial coverage. The rest are student publications, but we have some critical notice, weak but it's there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FBG Duck

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:VICTIM. No indication of awards or charted songs.

FBG Duck was shot to death August 4, 2020, and his article was deleted two weeks later, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBG Duck. None of his posthumous releases were notable. This is mostly a recreation of a murdered rapper's tribute article. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Coverage in XXL Magazine and Billboard before he died, shows some critical notice during his active period. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City Parks Foundation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to its reliance on a single source, which does not sufficiently establish the organization's notability as required by Wikipedia's guidelines. The article lacks independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the foundation's impact and activities OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coralogix

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Most references are either press releases, primary sources, or non-independent tech blogs, which may not adequately demonstrate the company’s significant coverage in reputable secondary sources. OatPancake (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Scott Brown

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A psychiatrist whose closest claim to notability is as a 'celebrity doctor', but the the cited sources seem tangential and insufficient to provide notability. Yoga advocacy is noted, but there is no evidence of impact of this advocacy: for example, their only publication on this topic (Brown, 2018) has no citations. Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC: noting H-index of 4, based on 6 publications, with no named chair. Klbrain (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Chron source is about an oboe recital, not really notable. I can only find interviews [24] or articles he's written, as the ones used for sourcing now in the article. Nothing strictly about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Adjunct professor with a low citation count that doesn't seem to pass any of the WP:NPROF criteria. Couldn't find anything about this person's published work in magaziens that would be enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. nf utvol (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student World Impact Film Festival

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have strong belief that this subject does not meet the notability criteria mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:NGO. This article relies excessively on the use of primary sources, and when searched up, I can only see some reliable/secondary sources, and even then they are not independent of the subject (e.g interviews with the founder). WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and New Jersey. WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typaldos D. children's choir

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this sort of thing (a children's band from a foreign country) is a uniquely difficult thing to find sources on. All the same I'm failing to find coverage in-depth coverage reliable sources (lots of passing credits or else promotion of upcoming event). I'm also having trouble finding anything about the award talked about in the article (although again it being a Portuguese award from the 90s, which I only have the English name of makes confirmation difficult). I don't see this passing based on this though, as it doesn't seem to be a "major music competition", as WP:BAND requires. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Greece. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article doesn't cite any sources at all and fails WP:BAND. The award talked about in specific is not notable, and upon trying to find any reliable sources for the choir, none can be found.

WormEater13 (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, only award is from a non-notable organization and reliable sources are absent. Fails WP:BAND. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic (Thomas Anders album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM and lacks significant coverage from reliable sources. Frost 12:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wadiz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP. This page has been deleted as advertising, then recreated and draftified. In-article sources include a Q&A WP:INTERVIEW with an executive (a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE; [25]) and a WP:TRIVIALMENTION on an FT list. A scholarly article appears to offer WP:SIGCOV. In my WP:BEFORE search, both under Wadiz and the Hangul 와디즈, I found only WP:ORGTRIV or affiliated sources like press releases. (However, if anyone has examples of additional qualifying coverage under WP:CORPDEPTH please ping me as it's possible I missed something given the language barrier.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Korea. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was able to find coverage about this company from The Chosun Daily and Fox News. I think thats enough to establish notability. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage in Fox News? No results turn up: [26]. And I have to agree with Oaktree b that Chosun Daily coverage is all WP:ORGTRIV or WP:CHURNALISM regurgitating press releases: [27]. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found other than articles confirming funding was acquired and PR items. The Fox News item noted above is a RP item and the Chosun articles I pull up are about securing funding, nothing notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The persistent deletion/draftifying and then re-creation by an editor who has not responded to the COI warning suggests that attempts to improve the quality of the article will be reverted in favor of the current promotional version. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, I was only able to find two Chosun Daily articles that provide some genuine coverage.[28][29] Additionally, a search for mentions in books led me to this bit from the Routledge Handbook of Korean Business: "In 2021, Wadiz, the largest crowdfunding website surpassed 200 billion KRW. Consequently, the market size may be between 300 billion and 400 billion KRW; however, the scale of securities-type crowdfunding in Korea is relatively modest."[30] Vegantics (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that book is a trivial mention, and the Chosun Daily pieces are both WP:ORGTRIV as routine coverage of the company's capital-raising and financials. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divine embodiment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a large WP:SYNTH attempt to draw a thread between specific practices in Western Esotericism and practices which exist in other religions. While there's certainly a rhetorical thread linking them, the specific topics in question either have their own articles (Deity yoga, Jewish mysticism) or straight up are questionably included here. I went through trying to figure out if there's possibly an article here as I have some expertise on only one of the constituent topics, but I think there's way, way too much WP:SYNTH here attempting to link disparate traditions on the basis of the similarity of their practices, rather than pointing to a wider sourced discussion of those topics as synthesized.

Essentially this article seems to be trying to link practices which are not so strongly linked within Religious Studies and I'm uncertain it's possible to write a single article about that without so many caveats on the different interpretations between faiths that it becomes meaningless in the absence of rock-solid scholarly sourcing. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Buddhism, Judaism, and Spirituality. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the methods are explicitly linked and compared in psychological discussions, for example, Friedman, Harris; et al. (2024). "Models of Spiritual and Transpersonal Development". In Miller, Lisa J. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Spirituality. Oxford University Press. pp. 149–172. ISBN 978-0-19-090553-8. Skyerise (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a psychology text. The article explicitly is drawing synthesis through religious studies, and while I acknowledge interdisciplinary expertise is useful and definitely not wrong, it seems like quite a house of cards to link multiple disparate religious traditions through in the absence of anything at all from either the field of religious studies or the scholarship of those religions themselves. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term is used throughout religious studies literature as well, as evidenced by the titles of many of the sources. The topic of "divine embodiment" exists as a notable scholarly category, and certainly deserves coverage in Wikipedia:
Collins, Dawn (2020). "Seeing the Gods: Divine Embodiment through Visualisation in Tantric Buddhist Practice". In Rosen, Aaron; Child, Louise (eds.). Religion and Sight. Equinox Publishing. doi:10.1558/equinox.35753.

Fiorella, K. (2023). "Thinking in a marrow Bone: Embodiment in Vajrayana Buddhism and Psychoanalysis". Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. 71 (2): 277–309. doi:10.1177/00030651231174237.

Gray, D. B. (2006). "Mandala of the Self: Embodiment, Practice, and Identity Construction in the Cakrasamvara Tradition". Journal of Religious History. 30 (3): 294–310. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2006.00495.x.

Holdrege (2015). Bhakti and Embodiment: Fashioning Divine Bodies and Devotional Bodies in Krsna Bhakti. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-66909-8.

Orlov, A. A. (2024). Embodiment of Divine Knowledge in Early Judaism. Routledge Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-032-10591-8.

Washburn, M. (2012). Embodied Spirituality in a Sacred World. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-8626-9.

Right, but that's not the same thing as linking these traditions, which is why there's a WP:SYNTH concern. The expression of divine embodiment in Deity yoga, for example, is fundamentally a distinct think from that in Jewish mysticism, to such a degree that even in the article we're discussing it's basically two parallel explanations with minimal overlap. That's the WP:SYNTH issue, here. You seem to be running with "there is a term for this sort of thing" and taking it to the extreme of "Therefore these things are relatable". Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The psychological and spiritual overviews describe them as manifestations of the same psychological views and processes, and each covers most if not all of the traditions listed. Each of the more focuses sources makes comparisons with one or more of the others. Also, the relationship between the psychological and theological aspects of embodiment is discussed in depth in Manning, Russell Re, ed. (2020). Mutual Enrichment Between Psychology and Theology. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-13149-6. The article doesn't assert historical continuity except where that continuity is documented. Your criticism of the article is unfounded, and I expect your threadbare argument will be rejected by those with deeper knowledge of the topic. Skyerise (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I probably am one of the Wikipedia editors more knowledgeable on this topic. That’s why I’m objecting to the form the article has taken; the existence of a category of practice within scholarship is not the same thing as a statement of the real existence of that category. An article about the academic concept itself may warrant existence, but what’s there now is either more broad collection in disparate information weakly linked by a few authors’ use of a specific term at best and WP:SYNTH at worst. Look at Prayer, for a similar example without the immediate launch into a signal boost for western esotericism. But I think we should let this play out without us creating walls of text. :) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’d like to address some of the concerns raised, particularly regarding the potential WP:SYNTH and the article’s approach to comparing practices across various traditions. The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment. The article draws on scholarly sources from psychology, religious studies, and spirituality, which explore how these practices—despite differences in context—lead to similar experiential transformations.

It’s important to clarify that this article does not claim a unified historical or doctrinal lineage for these practices. Instead, it looks at how these traditions approach embodiment and transformation, acknowledging the significant cultural, theological, and historical distinctions that exist. For instance, deity yoga in Tantric Buddhism and theurgy in Neoplatonism are discussed in parallel, not as identical practices, but as different manifestations of a shared psychological goal—the embodiment of divine presence.

The comparison made in the article is grounded in modern religious studies and psychological research that recognize these practices as part of broader categories of spiritual development. Collins (2020) and Fiorella (2023), among others, provide frameworks for understanding how different traditions of embodiment can lead to similar transformational experiences—even if the underlying theological concepts differ significantly. This approach is informed by a growing body of scholarship that seeks to understand common patterns in human spiritual experiences, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all explanation on them.

In response to the concern about WP:SYNTH, I agree that the distinctions between these traditions should be carefully maintained. The article will be revised to emphasize these differences more clearly and to ensure that the article does not overstate the similarities between the practices. At the same time, the article acknowledges that while these practices may differ in their theological underpinnings, they often serve psychological functions that are remarkably similar.

I would also like to emphasize that this article does not make a case for a universal interpretation of divine embodiment, but rather documents how this concept is approached and interpreted by various academic disciplines across different spiritual traditions. This broader, comparative view is essential for understanding the role of embodiment in spiritual practice, and it’s an important area of scholarly interest within both psychology and religious studies. Skyerise (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My own views on whether the page is WP:SYNTH aside -- see the talk page where I had a tense conversation with Skyerise on this topic given our prior disagreements -- it's a very real topic and method in Western esotericism, and at most the page should reflect that -- it should not be deleted. On the topic of tantra in particular, there is clear evidence that deity yoga influenced Western esotericism. Two sources on this topic which can enrich the page:

Hackett, Paul G. (2017-10-23). The Assimilation of Yogic Religions through Pop Culture. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-4985-5230-1.
Djurdjevic, G. (2014-05-21). India and the Occult. New York (N.Y.): Springer. ISBN 978-1-137-40499-2.

My own objections were towards treating divine embodiment or the godform as trans-historical, rather than produced by the interaction of ultimately independent traditions meeting in the modern West. This alone is not enough to delete, imo. wound theology ◈ 13:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to summarize your stance as “Keep, but complete rewrite”? Because I don’t think I’d fundamentally object to this being an article about Western Esotericism, and yet it seems to be written sort of in a way to legitimize Western Esotericism in a historical religious framework? Basically what I’m trying to understand is if you think the article already here, rather than a completely different one that doesn’t yet exist at this article’s name, is acceptable. At that point draftify may be a better solution? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine as it is, just a little unbalanced and I've already brought up my grievances with Skyerise, which she was receptive of. There are many categories in the study of esotericism, both East and West, which for better or worse, are rooted in that same syncretism and perennialism. Even the term Esoteric Buddhism, which is pretty standard in academia, was coined by a Theosophist based on, well, racist ideas about how white occultists knew Buddhism better than Asians. So long as the page is explicit about how and why this idea of a perennial divine embodiment came about -- people like Crowley and Blavatsky being orientalists and largely misunderstanding Vajrayana -- then it should be fine. At most, it might need a name change to Godform since "divine embodiment" might be too general. wound theology ◈ 14:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, my initial contact with this concept didn't come from either Crowley or Blavatsky, but rather Beyer's Cult of Tara, which is much broader than the title implies, being a rather broader coverage described in the subtitle, Magic and Ritual in Tibet. Skyerise (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you about the trans-historical view. My intent has always been to add material about the influences the traditions had upon each other. This is, however, harder to source, so my initial foray into the topic was to delineate the traditions and usages involved and covered by reliable sources, then to start adding the historical developments and interactions where possible. I acknowledge that a more nuanced approach is required to avoid over-generalizing or implying direct historical continuity where there is none. The current structure does aim to present each tradition on its own terms, but I understand that a clearer historical framework is needed to show how these practices might have influenced one another, especially in the context of modern Western esotericism. The sources you mentioned, such as Hackett and Djurdjevic, would certainly provide valuable insights to enrich the article. They will help ground the discussion of divine embodiment within a more historical context and clarify the interaction between Eastern and Western traditions in more specific terms. Thank you for your support. Skyerise (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to decide if this is an article about modern Western Esotericism or a historical practice among religions which will necessarily relegate modern Western Esotericism to a minor mention just on WP:UNDUE grounds. It’s not tenable to have an article about a broad pan-religious topic spend equal time on a small (semi-)NRM as it does on Judaism and Buddhism. In your description of your intent here it looks like you’re trying to focus on Western Esotericism regardless of the weighting in sources? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is like two days old and I'm not done working on it. Your animus to Hermeticism in general is noted. Skyerise (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no antipathy towards Hermeticism or Western Esotericism. Hell I’m one of Esoterica’s Patreon patrons. That doesn’t mean that it warrants equal mention as every other religious and spiritual tradition, collectively, in an article that isn’t explicitly about western esotericism. If you’re still working on it then draftifying seems like the best solution? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been rated B-class by an independent rater, so no. Why would I agree to draftify an article based on weak arguments for deletion when the article has already been recognized as superior content? Skyerise (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I’m neither trying to pick a fight with you nor overly criticize your writing. You’re adding sources to the article “for use later” and on the talk page and AfD both have mentioned that the article isn’t finished, which seems like a reason to draftify to me, but we can leave it up to others. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of undeveloped stubs and articles under development. I had and have every right to move an article into main space once it is robust enough to stand on its own, even if it isn't "finished". That's how one gets contributions from other editors and constructive criticism. "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup". Adding sources to further reading is my process - I do it on many articles, most of which I didn't write myself. Your suggestion is ridiculous on its face, we have many articles with globalize tags or which are in other ways substantially incomplete, and we don't delete or draftify them. I invite contributions from other editors - the article is way past start class, and so far, you're the only editor who has a problem with it. I remain confident that the article will be kept. See also WP:IMPATIENT: "The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the article better; editors should explain how to do it. If the editor fails to follow through on the promise, other editors who arrive later can step in and keep improving it. This way, the article's fate is not dependent on one single editor doing the work; Wikipedia is written in a collaborative way." Skyerise (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be very clear: I think the article as is written, is so WP:SYNTH-rich that it shouldn't stand. If you feel there's a substantive article to be had in there, then given the current state of the article I believe draftifying it is the right call. Regardless of what it was assessed as during creation, since then two editors familiar with the material have expressed WP:SYNTH concerns, with each of those two editors falling on a different side of this AfD. I do not believe the article in its current form has surmountable problems and I think it needs a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. I struggle to see your reasoning here for the format of the article as anything other than WP:SYNTH, and I struggle to see how any version of this article could dedicate half its content to one of a multitude of traditions it applies to without an extremely good justification.

The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment.

The primary goal of any article should be presenting encyclopaedic information, not an exploratory endeavour to link phenomenon beyond what has been written in the established literature.

I may simply be wrong here in my read of this, and if I am then that's okay. We're all wrong at times, like when you said I had animus to Hermeticism. But I am not trying to tell you "I think this article is a bit messy and should be draftified before it's live", I'm saying I think the article as it is now unintentionally misreads readers into seeing a connection that simply isn't made in the literature in the way it's expressed here, and that this article, in my very possibly wrong opinion, shouldn't be live on Wikipedia until those concerns are addressed. But that is just one opinion and we're already making this unreadably long. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you ignore that the connection is detailed in multiple sources, both in psychological and religious studies, even though I have listed those sources explicitly. And you further misrepresent my position by taking that sentence out of context, so let me make it clearer for you: The primary goal of the article is to explore phenomenological similarities and shared practices within different spiritual traditions, specifically regarding divine embodiment, as covered in the relevant secondary reliable sources. [italicized phrase added]. If you think the discussion is too long, perhaps you should stop trying to one-up me every time I reply. Skyerise (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, wow, this is a full article which I'll have to read at length, like a good book, at some point soon. Meets GNG goes without saying even though said. Thanks to Skyerise for writing it, and to Warrenmck for nominating it which drew attention to the page, and to the comments of this educational discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment, GNG was never a concern with this article. The topic itself clearly is actually a thing within academic scholarship. The WP:SYNTH concerns cannot be addressed, I believe, without reading the article. Typically reading both the article and the reasons that it's been nominated in an AfD is a helpful step before voting, but I cannot speak to your process. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This continued argumentation with everyone who disagrees with you is unseemly. It's making the page unnecessarily long. Either your deletion arguments were convincing or they are not. I find them unconvincing and two other editors (so far) also find them unconvincing. It it really necessary to repeat them every time another editor responds??? Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn responded to a concern that was not raised (GNG) about an article he didn't read, per his own admission. It's fair to point out that GNG was never part of this discussion. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then its fair to note that you just acknowledged the topic existing in academia, which invalidates your whole argument. I suggest you save yourself the embarrassment of a WP:SNOWBALL keep by withdrawing your nomination. Skyerise (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP has just invalidated his own reason for deletion by saying The topic itself clearly is actually a thing within academic scholarship. Skyerise (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skyerise, you need to take about a thousand steps back and realize that an AfD isn't a personal attack. If anyone wants to take this note at face value the full context may be found here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take your own advice. Skyerise (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In short your argument is basically WP:TNT but I don't think the article is so irreparably damaged that this would apply. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do, but I'm 100% open to being wrong, hence the AfD process. And yeah, I really should have put WP:TNT as my reason above. Alas, there's only so many three letter acronyms following WP: a man can remember for instant recall. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is substantial psychological and psychoanalytic material on the subject both already cited and uncited but available through Wikipedia library (such as Transcendence and Its Shadow: A Depth Psychological Inquiry into Transcendence, the Transcendent Function, and Spiritual Bypassing. By: Tousignant, Maura, Psychological Perspectives, 00332925, Oct-Dec2023, Vol. 66, Issue 4) we don't delete topics with significant academic coverage just because the article is not yet perfect. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tenant harassment lawsuits and cases in Santa Monica

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Feels like WP:MILL. There's no indication that tenant harassment is any more notable/prominent in Santa Monica than anywhere else in the world, so I hardly see why this warrants a standalone article, being essentialy a coatrack of separate unrelated news stories otherwise only of local interest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found beyond the local press, I don't see that any national news outlets have talked about this. As the nom says, appears to be a purely local issue, not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nothing cited appears to demonstrate anything beyond the obvious fact that local media consider local stories to be important. Tenant harassment is a global issue, not a Santa Monica one, and needs to be treated accordingly. Without the media-scraping which is not only questionable on WP:BLP grounds, but liable to encourage more of the same should anyone feel inclined to start a similar article on their own turf. If the world needs a HarrasedTenantOpedia (a proposition I'd not necessarily disagree with), or indeed a SantaMonicaHarrasedTenantOpedia then someone should found one. Elsewhere, where Wikipedia policies on balance etc don't apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Storm in a Teacup (company)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NCORP, WP:NOTINHERITED. a WP:BEFORE found funding coverage from Wired Italy but looks insufficient. Suggesting redirect to Close to the Sun. IgelRM (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Italy. IgelRM (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CMS-Helmets

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG, there is no WP:SIGCOV. A review for one of their products does not grant notability. Coeusin (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Portugal. Coeusin (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine Archetypes of Ancient Drama in the Allegories of the Modern World

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Such an analysis belongs on a blog or (if it is better) in a scholarly journal. Fram (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Theatre, History, and Sexuality and gender. Fram (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, the subject is probably notable, but this is a two-day-old article by a new editor, who is probably a subject-expert but with no experience in Wikipedia's policies and styles. It has sources, but they've been incorrectly formatted so it's impossible to tell which statements are backed-up by which sources (and this is one of the major problems in assessing notability; we need to know who's written about the subject, and what they said). It would be sensible to give the editor who created it time to sort out the referencing errors, remove their own personal connection from the article (Wikipedia articles don't have named authors) and get the article into shape. I'd strongly recommend that the original creator put it through the AfC process (articles for creation) as AfC will provide feedback on all the wikipedia-specific intricacies of creating an article, which is non-trivially different to general academic writing. Elemimele (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Many of the references appear to be primary sources, and a lot of what is written appears to be WP:OR based on the editor's reading of the primary sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanations, you are absolutely right in what you are telling me. In this context, I recognize my mistakes. I recently registered as a user-editor on Wikipedia—it is a very attractive and culturally emblematic space. Naturally, I am not yet familiar with Wikipedia’s specific editing rules, but I am starting to understand them. As for my article, it is original—I am an essayist, and it is difficult for me to avoid writing in a subjective manner. I will try to "fix it." Sending good thoughts and wishing you all the best! Graziella Popescu (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korv Stroganoff

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Regional varieties of Stroganoff are already listed in the Beef Stroganoff article. Korv Stroganoff is already mentioned in Beef_Stroganoff#Nordic_countries and its typical ingredients and serving methods are adequately summarised there.

The citations used in this article are also primarily from supermarket websites and cooking recipe blogs; not (WP:RELIABLE). Lea 4545 (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Sweden. Lea 4545 (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Revise the information in the Stroganof article instead.Blockhaj (talk)

Keep. From a quick search there appears to be enough coverage in Swedish RS to support notability (and I am not counting any recipes). Remember that article quality is not a reason for deletion. Sjö (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To further note, majority of the recipies are from major supermarkets. Also, if i remember correctly, when i made the article i added separate doublets for all claims. So in short, "not WP:reliable" does not apply. Blockhaj (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then Merge: The deletion proposal was not based on subject notability, nor primarily on article quality. The topic is already adequately covered in the Beef Stroganoff article, making a separate page unnecessary. This constitutes a unacceptable type of content fork per WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

Per WP:PAGEDECIDE: "At times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." This applies here, as Korv Stroganoff is a regional variant of Beef Stroganoff and benefits from being presented within the broader context of related variations. Lea 4545 (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korv Stroganoff only derives from Beef Stroganoff, but it is its own dish. It is a completely different staple in Sweden and Finland. With this logic it makes more sense to merge Haggis into Pölsa, as the former is just a lamb variant of it. Blockhaj (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Korvstroganoff is a separate dish. It has a distinct role in Swedish society (essentially a kids' meal), very different from the role Beef Stroganoff plays in other Western countries. --Soman (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kategate

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After checking through the references, I am unable to find any noteworthy coverage beyond March to early-April 2024. This appears to just fall under WP:NOTNEWS. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We literally have an entire New York Times article from January 2025 dedicated to the whole timeline of events from last year. She was one of the runners-up for Time magazine's Person of the Year in 2024 again due to the events of past year. I personally voted in favor of the deletion of Where is Kate?, simply because it went into absurd discussions about videos and conspiracy theories. This article though discusses an action by the subject herself, namely publishing and then retracting a doctored photo; which was released on the platform of a supposedly respected institution, namely Kensington Palace. And at this point we do have multiple pages dedicated to Royal scandals namely Squidgygate, Tampongate, Megxit, etc. Cannot see why Kate should be the only one whose actions cannot be discussed. Keivan.f^Talk 12:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article in question only concerns a particular incident during the whole cancer diagnosis affair, one which only lasted for about a month before the press stopped covering it. The New York Times artice linked above only summarizes the photo scandal in two sections, which indicates that the Photogate scandal content should probably be merged into a separate article. The Time shortlist makes no mention of the photo scandal. As for the other links, we should keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in mind. Not all royal scandals are deserving of a Wikipedia article; long-term coverage for each must be demonstrated, but even at a glance, the reference sections of each of the three linked -gate articles have sources spanning multiple years of coverage. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with @Keivan.f. This article is clearly focused on the photo editing incident, not general speculation or trivia. The event was widely reported by reliable sources and sparked international media coverage—far more than passing interest. It’s clearly notable and distinct from general speculation, and its sources support standalone coverage.Given its reliable sourcing and , it easily meets notability and deserves to stand. MSincccc (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The international media is not beyond covering passing interest. In order to show that the subject has lasting notability, coverage from (ideally) later than March-April 2024 should be provided. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave an example with the New York Times, which even goes into greater depths about all the events from last year, which Wikipedia cannot do since it's not a news website. And we don't necessarily need to see daily coverage of an event from the past to establish its notability. Do we get daily coverage on celebgate or emailgate? Of course not. But they do get discussed in contexts related to their respective subjects. Keivan.f^Talk 15:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the NYT article only mentions the entire Photogate scandal in two headings, namely under "March 10, 2024" and "March 11, 2024." This indicates the Photogate scandal should also be placed in a separate Wikipedia article discussing the cancer diagnosis more broadly. Additionally, while it is understood that long-term coverage does not mean constant coverage, notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Perhaps an article titled "Cancer diagnosis of Catherine, Princess of Wales" (currently a redirect) should be made, since I do see long term coverage of that subject. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cancer diagnosis has nothing to do with the digital alteration of the photograph released on Mother's Day. It is just that the diagnosis was revealed to the public a few days after this incident. MSincccc (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon (signal fire)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article Beacon (signal fire) duplicates information already covered in the Beacon article and exists entirely within its scope. The majority of the page is entirely unsourced, other than two WP:Self-published sources within popular culture. Lea 4545 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Lea 4545 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The beacon article is too broad. The early warning system has its own Wikidata object. The idea with it is to port over relevant information from beacon and instead describe it shortly in the main beacon article with a link to the specific subarticle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockhaj (talk • contribs) 08:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autônomos FC

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Amateur team with no relevance in Brazilian football, having not played in any competition in which it has achieved sporting merit. Most of the sources present do not demonstrate WP:CONTINUED coverage, only mentioning the curiosity that the club has an anarchist theme. Blatant fails in WP:GNG and WP:MILL since there are countless amateur teams in Brazil with their own themes. Svartner (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Organizations, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per statement in this nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Sai

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entry has no other references, and the person is not an important figure in history, so it may not meet the inclusion criteria. Babaibiaobin (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:POLITICIAN and totally undiscernible to English readers. — Maile (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nicholas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After reviewing the article it came to my attention that the person this article is about does not meet the notability criteria for creative professionals since:

- There is no readily available evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas is widely cited by her peers or successors, or that she is considered an "important figure" within the broader literary community.

- It is unlikely that Anna Nicholas has originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique within the literary field. Her work, while potentially popular, does not appear to have revolutionized or significantly altered literary practices.

-While Anna Nicholas has published books, it is questionable whether these works have been the "primary subject" of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" that meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Simply having reviews or mentions is insufficient; the reviews must be substantial and from reputable sources. It must be demonstrated that the books have had a significant cultural impact.

- There is no evidence to suggest that Anna Nicholas's works have achieved any of these criteria. Her books do not appear to have become "significant monuments," been part of significant exhibitions, received exceptional critical attention, or been included in notable gallery or museum collections. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and United Kingdom. Fatimald (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interestingly there is a recent review of one of her books in the Telegraph[31] but also two recent bylines[32][33] so this cannot be considered an independent source. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and article is largely unchanged from the one she herself originally created 17 years ago. Orange sticker (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Travel and tourism, Spain, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Telegraph review used in the article, not enough to meet AUTHOR. With one or two more book reviews we should have AUTHOR notability, but I don't see any. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Hamer

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources seem to be about Hamer's political campaign, nothing to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL unless she wins an election. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was deleted in the past for being non-notable, nothing has changed to make her notable enough to keep. GraziePrego (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- She's up for elections, & has been hiding this information that has recently come out in the press. She has, in fact, been campaigning on the exact opposite of what is the truth ie presenting herself as a renter when really owning multiple multi-million dollar properties in multiple countries. How is this not notable enough to keep? This information absolutely should be out in the public. Did she propose it for deletion? ExpertEgeo (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds like political commentary rather than a policy-based reason for why her article should be retained on Wikipedia. GraziePrego (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a candidate in the federal election is about your platform and how you identify yourself.
    
    Amelia Hamer has identified herself as a renter that understands first hand the struggle of making rent each week.
    
    News has found out that Hamer actually owns two properties for herself invalidating her claim that she is a 'renter'.
    
    I think its fair to allow the reader on wikipedia read what information or 'political commentary' that she has offered and then have a counter-claim with a highly regarded piece of investigative journalism. A statement of fact is not political commentary as Amelia Hamer is indeed a landlord who owns two properties as provided by her in The Age article. 128.250.0.193 (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not fame nor importance and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political campaigns. Uncle G (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  That she may or may not have been hiding something which would hurt her election campaign is irrelevant. The only thing of any relevance is whether she satisfies our notability guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 10:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is enough coverage to pass. The press articles about her are more focused and organic than the usual election candidate announcements, statements or press releases. She is seen as a "high profile" candidate. Mekomo (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just noting that this discussion is being tweeted about, so some first-time users may come in just for this discussion. GraziePrego (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Delete: All of the coverage is in relation to her being a political candidate, which is insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Even the landlord stuff is in relation to her being a political candidate. If she wasn't a candidate then we would have no idea about the landlord stuff because it wouldn't be reported on because she is not notable. She may or may not be successful in the 2025 Australian federal election which is a little bit less than a month away. Therefore as a WP:ATD I suggest moving to draft. If she gets elected the article can move back to mainspace and if she is unsuccessful then it doesn't come back unless there is in depth coverage of her in secondary reliable sources, which are independent, for something else other than her being a political candidate. Given the proximity to the federal election I had thought that perhaps this should be sent to draft, however GraziePrego has informed me below that a superior version exists in draft. TarnishedPath^talk 09:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath just as a note, there is already a Draft at Draft:Amelia Hamer which is more comprehensive than what is currently here. GraziePrego (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it clear that this should be deleted then. @GraziePrego, thanks for drawing my attention to that. TarnishedPath^talk 12:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that draft does not include the most notable information about her, namely that she campaigned on a platform of being a renter and was then discovered to be a landlord owning multiple properties around the world. 121.45.42.90 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to read up on what WP:NOTABLE means on Wikipedia. GraziePrego (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the draft can be copied into the existing page as the current page is already GNG passing with existing sources. Content discussion in this case has nothing to do with what should be a speedy keep decision. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The coverage of her political gaff, with her Paltering & Lying by omission about her trying to connect with millennials and youth voters by describing herself as a "renter", while leaving out the fact she has real estate interests in the UK & Australia worth roughly $2 million AUD that she is renting out, is more than enough to satisfy GNG. NPOL is irrelevant. The Guardian, SBS & Nine News stories about her renter lie scandal are significant coverage, from a reliable source indecent of the subject, as is the Cherwell article about being removed as Oxford Student editor (this may feel irrelevant to some people, but it is clearly a GNG passing source). A quick google search found additional GNG passing sources, not that it needs them, because it already passes GNG. The quality of the article is irrelevant to a deletion discussion. This should be a Reason 3 WP:Speedy Keep as this nomination is completely erroneous. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being a landlord isn't notable and neither are having scandalous nude photos or allegations of cheating in school. Non-notable political candidate otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No-one is saying she's notable because she's a landlord or had a nude photo taken. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So she's a non-notable political candidate, you pull out that coverage, there is nothing left. Running for office isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have requested a speedy deletion. The article (and all its previous versions) contain contentious/ libellous info that is unsourced about a living person and active politician. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Woah. That is completely out of line and wrong. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. All of your claims are completely false. Everything was fully sourced from credible sources. Wistherdisc (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy, and removed the nude image stuff which appeared to be unsourced. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We silently EC'd on this. I also declined the speedy and removed the silly claim of the nude image. The article needs better sources and some editing, though. —Kusma (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "nude photo" was her with a group of other Uni students, all covered up by newspapers sitting on a couch. There is an article about it from the (barely reliable) Herald Sun behind their paywall if anyone cares that much about it. I know I don't. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a nothingburger to me, not worth including even with sources. —Kusma (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, unelected candidate. Even so, would require a lot of work to meet wikipedia standards. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: NPOL only provides a guideline on people who are presumed to be notable, it is not an requirement that must be "passed" in addition to WP:GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's longstanding convention on wikipedia that a unelected candidate is not notable and routine coverage received during the election cycle does not count towards GNG. I say this as someone who !voted keep for the same reasons you did in the first deletion discussion. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO, in the section regarding NPOL, specifically mentions that candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". The subject here does, as they have received multiple pieces of significant coverage. The supposed "convention" regarding NPOL is WP:OTHER and irrelevant to GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this candidate notable outside of the election coverage? It is a bit of a stretch to label a longstanding precedent WP:OTHER. I suggest you take a look at the arguments made in the first deletion discussion and Common outcomes#Candidates. GMH Melbourne (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is someone with significant clout, power & money behind her election campaign, which she is running on the basis of sheer lies. Wikipedia is usually the first source of information for people, and I would say it is in the interest of the general public in light of the upcoming elections that this article be left online. ExpertEgeo (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a liar isn't notable, lying politicians are sadly a dime a dozen, everywhere on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, this article does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. I think Draft:Amelia Hamer is better sourced and stands a much better chance of meeting at least WP:GNG. --DesiMoore (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is whether Amelia Hamer (the person) meets WP:GNG, which has not much to do with the content of either the draft or the article. (The draft or article may demonstrate that she meets the GNG, or it may not; her notability will not change if we delete either or both of draft and article). —Kusma (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ki Society

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability (WP:NCORP/WP:GNG). The article has no footnotes, there is a list of possible sources in 'Further reading' but no indication they mention this organization. My BEFORE fails to find anything except a few passing mentions (like in this academic article, which is reliable but WP:SIGCOV is an issue - passing mentions in two sentences are not good enough, I fear); maybe there are sources in Japanese but ja wiki article is no better than ours. This is about to be deleted from pl wiki (where we recently cleaned a bunch of articles on non-notable Polish akido organizations that nobody except themselves have noticed). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Travel Mart

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is clearly WP:PROMO. Little to know sources talking about it. Fails WP:GNG and all of the sources are press releases Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Travel and tourism, India, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:An editor had edited a name change on the article and broken the link to this AFD. Ihave restored that and am adding a Findsources for the alternate name here. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Tourism Mart: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

José Luis Ricón

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability. The Org seems to be the equivalent of a LinkedIn page, and the Future page does not provide any notable information. Many of the citations in the article are not verified in the sources, such as the claim of a "widely cited resource" Longevity FAQ. In addition, I have reason to believe this might be a trolling attempt, due to the creation of a prediction market on if the article will survive to the end of the year (https://manifold.markets/infiniteErgodicity/will-the-wikipedia-article-for-jose) Duckduckgoop (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Duckduckgoop (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, Internet, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dondero High School A Capella Choir Pop Concert

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I rejected this at draftspace but it was moved to mainspace and renamed. This fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. The book was written by someone who went to the high school and isn't secondary, and the reporting is local coverage, mostly of the book which was written. It's also not written from a neutral point of view, which is a clean up issue if this is kept. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Michigan. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The book is usable for historical information, and we don't need it to establish notability because the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles are enough to establish notability. The articles are relevant. The Detroit News is one of the most important newspapers in the United States. The Oakland Free Press is the most important newspaper in Oakland County. Articles relevant to Metro Detroit help achieve notability. The area has a greater population than some countries. The Metro Detroit area has millions of people. If you asked 100 people what their subjective opinion on what a neutral point of view is, they would give 100 different answers. As far as I am aware, the statements in the article are backed by reliable sources. I believe that is as objective as you can get. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Wikipedia rules require significant coverage of reliable and independent sources so that a fair and balanced article can be written. All of the articles used in the Pop Concert article are from reliable sources, including the Detroit News article and two separate Oakland Press articles, and those articles have the pop concert as the main subject and not just a passing mention, making the coverage in the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles significant. The Detroit News and Oakland Press articles are also independent sources as they were written by writers who were not affiliated with the pop concert. Wikipedia requires at least one secondary source for an article to qualify, and this article has several secondary sources, including the Detroit News article and the 2 Oakland Press articles. Wikipedia requires multiple sources for an article to qualify (The definition of multiple is more than one). The Detroit News article and the 2 separate Oakland Press articles satisfy the multiple articles Wikipedia guideline. See Wikipedia's notability guidelines posted here in the section "why we have these requirements": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. The Pop Concert article also establishes notability by explaining that the Pop Concert was innovative and groundbreaking for its time in the field of high school choir performance. Also, I had the right to move up the Pop Concert article once it was no longer in the articles of creation space since I am an autoconfirmed user. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: "Local sources are considered to be reliable sources if they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for being reliable sources. They are valid in establishing notability if they provide in-depth, non-routine, non-trivial coverage of the subject." See this Wikipedia article: Wikipedia:Notability (local interests)#:~:text=Articles on local interests are,going, non-trivial coverage. As I stated before, the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles provide in-depth coverage, and not just a passing mention of the Dondero Pop Concert. Also, the article Mr Hartoe's Opus was written 9 years before the other articles and compares Mr. Hartsoe's story to the movie Mr. Holland's Opus while discussing the history of the Dondero Pop Concert. The other two articles mention the book but focus primarily on the history of the Dondero Pop concert. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article created by an IP in 2024. Sourcing is not good. Does not seem notable or encyplopedic. Probably a promoter or someone close to the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please cite why you think the sourcing is not good? Seems not notable is not a reason. You should back that with some sort of Wikipedia regulation. See this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy It's not about how you feel about something. A potential conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, and it is already under review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An_interest_is_not_a_conflict_of_interest Orlando Davis (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dondero High School. I don't think this can be said to have notability separate from the institution, given its purely local provenance. BD2412 T 01:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging seems like a plausible outcome, but no consensus has been reached on this. It would be good if those who think the sourcing is good, or the sourcing is bad, would explain their policy-based reasoning for their position.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I dont see how this book is notable. A quick Google search shows 0 results. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a google search of the Dondero High School Pop Concert and got lots of results including the sources that have links on the bottom of the Dondero Pop Concert article.The article is not about the book. It is about the Dondero High School pop concert. As I already stated earlier in the conversation, the notability is based on significant coverage from multiple sources (The definition of multiple is more than one). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Those sources are the Detroit News and two articles from the Oakland Press that have links. We can use the book for historical information, but we don't need the book for the article's notability because notability is established by the Detroit News and Oakland press articles that have links at the bottom of the page. As I stated earlier in the conversation, those sources are reliable and provide in depth coverage of the Dondero Pop Concert. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should not merge the page because it does not qualify to merge based on Wikipedia's merging policy. Wikipedia:Merging#:~:text=Any editor can perform a,and discussed, as detailed below. Please cite a Wikipedia policy page and quote if you think the page should merge if you vote this way. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Detroit News and Oakland Free Press are not small-town newspapers. The Detroit News is one of the two most important newspapers in Detroit, which is one of the biggest cities in the United States, and the Oakland Press is the most important newspaper in one of the biggest counties in the United States. These are the sources that establish notability for the Dondero High School A Capella Choir Pop Concert article. The guidelines are clear about how notability is established, and the article is notable because it includes multiple articles on the subject of the article with significant coverage and not just a passing mention. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother: The Boss

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content already exists on Big Brother (franchise) article. Stand alone article does not meet wp:GNG. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind slowing down television-related AfDs, please? and in particular, if you suggest redirects or merging, you can start a discussion on the TPs of the concerned pages. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 00:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother (franchise)#Versions since it seems more notable to have article in arabic wiki than English wiki. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramos1990, that's not how notability works. It doesn't matter what language the sources are in. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that this is not notable here. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother (franchise): Doesn’t need a whole page…. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 05:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor – A sziget

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of edits since 2011 by no WP:RS. merge with larger article on Survivor television program. Survivor (franchise) Variety312 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Hungary. Variety312 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Variety312. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor (franchise) . 190.219.103.171 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-'Ashr al-Awakher

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources. No indication of notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the article is describing is the Night of Power. Whether this is a legitimate name for it is another question. If it is, redirect, but I don't think it is, so delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in its original state, the article contained three references, none of which mentioned Al-'Ashr al-Awakher at all. Since nomination at AfD, the creating editor has added a rough translation from the urwiki article, but I am not sure what to make of the references that are now there - they look like primary sources to me, but my knowledge of Islam is quite poor. In any case, although my WP:BEFORE searches turned up references to the last ten nights of Ramadan and that the Night of Power occurs within that period (so the topic is possibly notable), I could find nothing linking the phrase Al-'Ashr al-Awakher with it at all. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first version of the article was incomplete, I've improved it now, so I think it should keep. Leo^talk 10:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per leo.Veritasphere (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable but sources can be improved. Mainly primary sources at the moment. Needs secondary sourcing. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more thorough, policy-based input, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muroosystems

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advert tone, cross-wiki spam. Aqurs1 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm new to Wikipedia, not spam. Can you point out exactly what's wrong? I'll fix it. Cycm1122 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look on WP:NOTPROMO, and article does not meet notability guildline. Aqurs1 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the text and the links. Please check again, thanks! Cycm1122 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meets WP:N. Shwangtianyuan Working together for the better community 09:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please approve. Cycm1122 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion – subject meets notability through multiple independent sources

The article satisfies WP:GNG through significant coverage by independent, reliable sources:

Economist.kg, Kabar, and Kazinform report on Muroosystems’ IT and energy projects in Central Asia, including government-level agreements and hydropower development;
Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) lists Muroosystems as a funded participant in national trade digitalization programs;
Zukan.biz and Weekly BCN provide independent coverage of the company’s financials and platform strategy.

In 2024, Muroosystems acquired Nukem, a German nuclear engineering firm, in a transaction reported by World Nuclear News and other industry sources.

These clearly demonstrate real-world impact and lasting significance beyond routine announcements. The article meets notability and should be improved, not deleted. Cycm1122 (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". Cycm1122 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is mostly about the Nukem acquisition that I find, which isn't quite enough to show notability. As it's a routine business transaction, we need article about the company, not on what the company bought. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your specific feedback. I’ve already shared my reasons above for why I don’t think the article should be deleted. That said, I agree that more independent coverage would definitely help, and I’ll keep an eye out for new sources so I can continue improving the page.

With nuclear energy making a comeback globally, I’m also hoping to create and expand more articles on companies involved in this field. Cycm1122 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found several English sources and added them. Cycm1122 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability is supported by multiple independent sources

I created this article and welcome improvements. While the Nukem acquisition is a notable part of the company's story, it's far from the only reason this subject is notable.

Muroosystems has been covered by independent sources across multiple domains — including trade digitalization projects backed by Japan’s METI, bilateral cooperation with governments in Central Asia (covered by 24.kg, Kabar, Kazinform), and business coverage from outlets like Weekly BCN and Zukan Biz.

These aren’t trivial mentions or routine press releases — they show consistent coverage and involvement in publicly funded initiatives and government-level infrastructure.

Happy to further improve the article’s structure if needed, but the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. – Cycm1122 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is poor, topic not notable. Maybe better for Japanese wiki. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not properly made, and sourcing isn’t the greatest… Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 05:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shag Musa Medani

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod with reason "subject meets WP:NATH as a cross country national champion". I'm not sure if this relates to WP:NATH #4 "Have won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those who have never been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year". There isn't enough evidence that he is in the top 60 IAAF for cross country. All sources are databases and fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Sudan. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with citing NATH in general in AfDs, but if you're going to bring it up, yes, subject clearly meets NATH prong 4 as an XC national champion and was in fact ranked 55th (top 60) in the world by the IAAF in cross country in 1977: [34].

What's always been more important was the general notability guideline, which can be met in a variety of ways including by WP:NEXIST. The case for NEXIST for this subject is strong, as the top Sudanese representative around the world in several disciplines over a multi-year period in the 1970s. I've looked and couldn't find prose-based coverage yet, but I would expect to find articles in physical Sudanese newspapers of the era, which could be accessible to us via a Wikipedian in Sudan. --Habst (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sudan at the 1972 Summer Olympics: Like the nom, I could not find any WP:SIGCOV for this BLP to meet the notability guidelines. WP:SPORTSBASIC requires at least one piece of significant coverage to be included in the article, which has never been the case here. We also can't assume who the local media would and would not have covered when determining whether to keep any WP:BLP. Redirect as a suitable WP:ATD, while also preserving the page history in the event better sourcing is found in the future. Let'srun (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The relevant guideline, which the article subject easily meets, is WP:SPORT, not WP:WEB, and just looking at the page shows more than enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. 190.219.103.171 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the supplied sources are databases. as per WP:SPORTBASIC "All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." LibStar (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sudan at the 1972 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. The arguments in favor of keep did not present any kind of sources. Svartner (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austria Billie Jean King Cup team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to undergo regular edits with no WP:RS, Suggest merging content with Billie Jean King Cup which already contains details about the competitors. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Tennis, and Austria. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no deletion rationale presented above. Was a WP:BEFORE search performed? Also, the suggested merge target is completely inappropriate. Billie Jean King Cup is the article that contains all the high level information about the competition from its founding as the Federation Cup to the present day, and currently has 0 mention of this particular team (and also has 0 depth of any other team at the level this article goes in to). AfD isn't supposed to be used to propose bad merges or as a time pressured source finding/article improvement tool. Iffy★Chat -- 16:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable Billie Jean King Cup team so why on earth would we delete it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no sources indicating the Austria team for the Fed cup/Billie Jean King cup is or has been notable. There is routine coverage of their results from certain years, but I have not found anything else. Merely claiming it is a notable BJK team does not make it so, there needs to be sources to meet general notability.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you asked for sources, here's some: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. Is that enough for you? Iffy★Chat -- 10:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources seem to be more than coverage of the team's results or their hopes for the Fed Cup/BJK cup. In my opinion, these would fall under routine coverage as it's pretty common for teams/players to be interviewed before, during, and after tournaments. I don't think these sources establish notability per WP:NSPORT or WP:ROUTINE. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you're going to get for sports teams. If there's consistent year round coverage of their performance/team composition, that should go towards notability. I'd struggle to find many sources even for Austria national football team that wouldn't meet some definition of routine. Jevansen (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has been here since 2007. Should have some sources by now showing wider coverage. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] - The fact that the sources aren't currently in the article isn't a basis for deletion. It's an reason to improve the article. Iffy★Chat -- 21:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Male TV Star

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been tagged since 2011. Although numerous edits have been made, none have added citations. Recommend merging with larger article on Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feels like you could just easily add the source for each ceremony from each year's KCA article rather than just adding it to a vortex of deletions. Nathannah • 📮 19:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems like a directory but the awards are sort of notable and the link [50] in the mian page shows multiple similar summary pages exist for other award categories. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated films in the public domain in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain in the United States. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of great importance. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no longer any point in keeping this one. desmay (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of films in the public domain in the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Most American films are entered in the public domain from 2019 or later, but other non-US films, including Indian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. are also public domain. Absolutiva (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've done a great many filmography articles and lists. Some are stand-alone lists, and some are imbedded in an actor's article. This particular list is very helpful in checking and completing those lists. — Maile (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These films that are public domain in the United States are not otherwise tracked on Wikipedia (for example, by a Category or template); this article remains the only effective mechanism on Wikipedia to find such films and their associated articles. In addition, the research in this article is considerably more reliable and well-referenced than any other non-wikipedia reference I have found on the same topic. 72.81.222.194 (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important. Maybe split the silent films, b&w vs color films. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Albertto

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. I can't find any coverage except for 1988 article in LA Times. Article is completely promotional and was created by banned user. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While most of the sources (both in the article and in a quick google search) are pretty low quality, I've found a couple that I think are usable for notability purposes. Mr Feel Good Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences Ageist, and LA Style. He was also quoted in a 1994 issue of Cosmopolitan[51] but I am not sure if that article provided substantial coverage. His heyday as an agent appears to have been in pre- and early internet days so more sources may be available offline. Article should be trimmed and rewritten to avoid promotion and unsourced detail but I think there is some substance behind the glitz. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not knowledgeable about fashion, but a quick online search shows a few different profiles that indicate notability as Eluchil404 listed. Article does need a significant rewrite to meet quality standards though.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really encylopedic. Article here since 2016. With such poor sourcing after this time, it means not even editors seem to care about the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See WP:SURMOUNTABLE and WP:NOEFFORT in particular - deletion is a question of subject notability, not article quality. Anerdw (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any source that can be suitable for this article, just promotional content and profiles 201.225.3.154 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heather (Glaive and Ericdoa song)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources give significant coverage to the song. Doesn't meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 00:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: YouTube, youtube, twitter and more, no reliable sources…. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 05:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sourcing which are all to primary sources. Mekomo (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; no secondary-source coverage. GoldRomean (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ “TERRORISM AND ASYMMETRIC THREAT: ACTIVITIES AGAINST TURKEY, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE 20th CENTURY TO THE PRESENT (Armenian Terror Activities and PKK Terror Organization Activities since 1915)”. Review of Armenian Studies, no. 18 (May 2008): 89-99.

[1] “TERRORISM AND ASYMMETRIC THREAT: ACTIVITIES AGAINST TURKEY, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE 20th CENTURY TO THE PRESENT (Armenian Terror Activities and PKK Terror Organization Activities since 1915)”. Review of Armenian Studies, no. 18 (May 2008): 89-99.

[1]